User avatar
rbale2
Civilian
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 1:39 am

A Word of Warning

Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:41 am

With the new patch and the addition of RoE:

100,000 federals in all out attack versus 51,000 rebels in all out defense at level 6 entrenchment yielded a battle result of 72,000 federal casualties. No, that's not a typo.

Be careful with your stances. Thankfully I was playing the rebels in this situation. Unfortunately I don't have a screenshot, but it should be mentioned that this happened at Fredericksburg over a period of several days.

PS: I should also mention that this battle was conducted by randomized generals, and the confederate commander had a defensive value of 10.

User avatar
arsan
Posts: 6244
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:35 pm
Location: Madrid, Spain

Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:52 am

rbale2 wrote:With the new patch and the addition of RoE:

100,000 federals in all out attack versus 51,000 rebels in all out defense at level 6 entrenchment yielded a battle result of 72,000 federal casualties. No, that's not a typo.

Be careful with your stances. Thankfully I was playing the rebels in this situation. Unfortunately I don't have a screenshot, but it should be mentioned that this happened at Fredericksburg over a period of several days.

PS: I should also mention that this battle was conducted by randomized generals, and the confederate commander had a defensive value of 10.



:nuts:
Well, this is a lot of casualties, thats for sure, but atacking at 2:1 a force with level 6 entrechments and a level 10 (¡!) defensive leader can be considered as VERY special circunstances... :bonk:
How about other battle result in less extreme situations?? Do they feel right??

Was the AI atacking or was a PBEM game??
How do you know the ROE of the enemy?? It´s shown on the battle report??

I think it will be interesting to see how the AI uses the new ROE settings. My NCP experience is very limited (just the demo) so i don´t know if "Athenea" knows how to do it right.

Cheers!

User avatar
rbale2
Civilian
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 1:39 am

Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:05 pm

It was a PBEM game. My opponent told me after the turn was over what his RoE had been. He was expecting me to withdraw, or offer a fighting retreat.

The general was a maximize-random Stonewall (**) general, with bonuses from Lee as army commander.

So far other battles have yielded much more typical results. I didn't mean to imply that this patch was broken. I just wanted to illustrate what a "perfect storm" looks like playing with the christmas patch.

That is to say, I mean to warn everybody against using all out attack stance unless you're sure you have them whipped. :turc:

User avatar
arsan
Posts: 6244
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:35 pm
Location: Madrid, Spain

Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:34 pm

rbale2 wrote:It was a PBEM game. My opponent told me after the turn was over what his RoE had been. He was expecting me to withdraw, or offer a fighting retreat.

The general was a maximize-random Stonewall (**) general, with bonuses from Lee as army commander.

So far other battles have yielded much more typical results. I didn't mean to imply that this patch was broken. I just wanted to illustrate what a "perfect storm" looks like playing with the christmas patch.

That is to say, I mean to warn everybody against using all out attack stance unless you're sure you have them whipped. :turc:


Hi!
I pity your adversary... :p leure:
Your battle leaves the historical Fredicksburg as a little skirmish :nuts:
After that northern debacle I suppose you must be knocking on Washington DC by now... :niark:

How much were your losses??

Cheers!

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25673
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Fri Dec 28, 2007 2:28 pm

Seems that the most exellent leaders on either side prevented also routing.
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

User avatar
GShock
Posts: 1134
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 4:30 pm

Fri Dec 28, 2007 2:54 pm

Most likely, the entrenchment bonuses and the general values played a key role.

It looks like everything worked as it should. High entrenchement vs superior numbers didn't do the job and the casualty rate was very high, as expectable.

Let's not forget there's also the luck component in die rolls. All in all it doesn't seem odd, on the contrary, I've noticed casualties increase and there was always a logical (and realistic) explanation.

I like the Xmas patch and i like the game a lot more :)
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
We ain't going down!

Jagger
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 949
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:31 pm

Fri Dec 28, 2007 6:15 pm

Even without ROE, I use assault command very, very rarely. If you get caught in a unexpected situation, the results can be disasterous.

I have just started experimenting with ROE in the new patch but I suspect some of the options are for very special or rare situations. Very nice to have options but must be confident the correct situation exists.

Guru80
Colonel
Posts: 311
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 5:34 am

Sat Dec 29, 2007 12:52 am

Jagger wrote:Even without ROE, I use assault command very, very rarely. If you get caught in a unexpected situation, the results can be disasterous.

I have just started experimenting with ROE in the new patch but I suspect some of the options are for very special or rare situations. Very nice to have options but must be confident the correct situation exists.


Yup, I agree with you. I am really liking the Defend and Retreat when I know I am out numbered to stall the opponent for a bit as I set up somewhere else. I am also liking the Feint ROE. Defend at all costs is an EXCELLENT addition against the AI anyway. No more even number battles where I have high entrenchments and I end up running for the hills just because the General didn't want to fire a single shot. The game has fixed the only "flaw" that caused me any grief.

I love AGEOD, lol

Return to “AACW Strategy discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests